Further to what you have stated there will also be events such as sample is single time is same and the test is same but method of reporting and or conducting test is different. Blood Sugar is one example sample is taken and tested on the bedside and sent to a lab also. These events and results need to be accommodated.
Bhupinder ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Heard" <[email protected]> To: "Openehr-Technical" <openehr-technical at openehr.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 4:02 PM Subject: Pathology requirements TIMED MEASUREMENTS > TIMED MEASUREMENTS > > The timed nature of specimens is dealt with in the history and event model > of the RM and available in the archetype editor. This deals with timed > measurements and interval measurements. The idea of a 21 day progesterone is > covered in state information relating to the time since the last menstrual > period - BUT there is still the idea of an untimed sequence of events where > the order is critical. There are also sequenced events when it comes to > looking for stool microscopy, occult blood - but these are reported > separately and really are administrative rather than of the nature I will > describe here. > > The best examples of this seem to occur in sampling - three samples of CSF - > the first, second and third - or shavings for histology looking for depth of > tumour. There are more, such as respiratory function tests with particular > challenges - and timing is not an issue. These occur one after the other but > the sequence is the only thing that is important - not the time - and time > would probably be made up. The question is, how do we deal with this. I > think we have two choices: > > 1. We recognise this is a sampling issue and there should be a label on each > sample which is transfered to the report - we have sample 1, 2 and 3 with > three separate microscopies and cultures in a single composition. This would > get around the confusion of trying to deal with this as a timing issue - it > would work for any sampling including location. We do not want to compare > these CSF samples in queries as equals but we would have some sort of label > associated. So, the sample label and order might be part of this - in the > request and then in the result. I guess this goes on at the moment. > > 2. We have a sequence idea in the event model, by using the offset but > having 'sequence' as the unit rather than time. This would mean that people > did not have to enter spurious times in the data and name the event as > Sample 1, which could be misleading. > > Comments? > > Cheers, Sam > ____________________________________________ > Dr Sam Heard > Ocean Informatics, openEHR > Co-Chair, EHR-SIG, HL7 > Chair EHR IT-14-9-2, Standards Australia > Hon. Senior Research Fellow, UCL, London > > 105 Rapid Creek Rd > Rapid Creek NT 0810 > > Ph: +61 417 838 808 > > sam.heard at bigpond.com > > www.openEHR.org > www.HL7.org > __________________________________________ > > > - > If you have any questions about using this list, > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org > - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
